gamedevlists-general — List for discussing general game development issues

RE: [GD-General] DLLs for game objects

[Jamie F. <ja...@qu...>]

We're heading toward a DLL for entities at some point, mostly so we can talk
to our editor nicely, but i'm not envisaging doing a DLL per entity :) But
it hasn't happened yet.

Jamie


-----Original Message-----
From: gam...@li...
[mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
Brian Hook
Sent: 25 March 2003 05:16
To: gam...@li...;
gam...@li...
Subject: [GD-General] DLLs for game objects


Relating to a thread on the gamedevlists-windows list, I thought I'd
just toss this out for discussion.

One of the reasons often touted for using a scripting language is
that you can easily modify the behaviour of game objects without
recompiling your main source base.  This is definitely an advantage.

The way you'd achieve the same effect using compiled code is via
DLLs.  At a coarser level, the Quakes did this with QuakeC (Q1),
server-side DLLs (Quake 2), and server + client side DLLs (Q3), but
each entity itself was not a separate DLL.

So let's take that to an extreme, where every object is generated by
a factory method within a specific DLL.  You get the advantage that
your "game kernel" does not have to be recompiled on the fly to
change behaviour, along with the advantages of debugger compatibility
and compiled code.

The downside is primarily complexity, in that you have hundreds or
maybe even thousands of DLLs for every entity, e.g. sword.dll and
orc.dll or what have you.  Not to mention that you could conceivably
run into a problem with DLL dependencies (what if vorpal_sword.dll is
dependent on sword.dll?).

None of these problems are benefits are particularly mind blowing,
but I haven't seen it done in practice so I was curious what others
might think of it.

I personally still prefer monolithic, statically linked stuff because
the practical advantages typically outweigh the theoretical benefits.

Thoughts and comments?

-Hook





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There!
NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-general mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU7

Re: [GD-General] DLLs for game objects

[Ray <ra...@gu...>]

I have thought about this for our game, and we already have factory functions for our classes so it would be trivial to move 
them into dlls. I've already done that for testing once, but as you said, the practicality outweighs the theoretically.
But, I wouldn't have a different dll for each object type, instead a different dll for a set of objects or classstypes.

Keeping the ability to move objects into their own dlls is good for general software engineering anyways and there's no reason 
not to design it that way, I think.

Recompiling the game kernel if there's an object change shows poor relationship between the engine and the objects.
Our game recompiles on my machine in under 5 minutes so there's no need to split the objects out anyways, and when an object 
behavior changes, there's only like 1-2 files that need recompiling too.

All-in-all, it's good to have your engine and objects separate from a design standpoint, but there's not much of a reason to 
make them a separate dll unless you really want modularity for future mods.

I'm tired, so I hope that's coherent enough for you.

- Ray

Brian Hook wrote:
> Relating to a thread on the gamedevlists-windows list, I thought I'd 
> just toss this out for discussion.
> 
> One of the reasons often touted for using a scripting language is 
> that you can easily modify the behaviour of game objects without 
> recompiling your main source base.  This is definitely an advantage.
> 
> The way you'd achieve the same effect using compiled code is via 
> DLLs.  At a coarser level, the Quakes did this with QuakeC (Q1), 
> server-side DLLs (Quake 2), and server + client side DLLs (Q3), but 
> each entity itself was not a separate DLL.
> 
> So let's take that to an extreme, where every object is generated by 
> a factory method within a specific DLL.  You get the advantage that 
> your "game kernel" does not have to be recompiled on the fly to 
> change behaviour, along with the advantages of debugger compatibility 
> and compiled code.
> 
> The downside is primarily complexity, in that you have hundreds or 
> maybe even thousands of DLLs for every entity, e.g. sword.dll and 
> orc.dll or what have you.  Not to mention that you could conceivably 
> run into a problem with DLL dependencies (what if vorpal_sword.dll is 
> dependent on sword.dll?).
> 
> None of these problems are benefits are particularly mind blowing, 
> but I haven't seen it done in practice so I was curious what others 
> might think of it.
> 
> I personally still prefer monolithic, statically linked stuff because 
> the practical advantages typically outweigh the theoretical benefits.
> 
> Thoughts and comments?
> 
> -Hook

[GD-General] DLLs for game objects

[Brian H. <bri...@py...>]

Relating to a thread on the gamedevlists-windows list, I thought=
 I'd 
just toss this out for discussion.

One of the reasons often touted for using a scripting language is=
 
that you can easily modify the behaviour of game objects without=
 
recompiling your main source base.  This is definitely an=
 advantage.

The way you'd achieve the same effect using compiled code is via=
 
DLLs.  At a coarser level, the Quakes did this with QuakeC (Q1),=
 
server-side DLLs (Quake 2), and server + client side DLLs (Q3),=
 but 
each entity itself was not a separate DLL.

So let's take that to an extreme, where every object is generated=
 by 
a factory method within a specific DLL.  You get the advantage=
 that 
your "game kernel" does not have to be recompiled on the fly to 
change behaviour, along with the advantages of debugger=
 compatibility 
and compiled code.

The downside is primarily complexity, in that you have hundreds=
 or 
maybe even thousands of DLLs for every entity, e.g. sword.dll and=
 
orc.dll or what have you.  Not to mention that you could=
 conceivably 
run into a problem with DLL dependencies (what if=
 vorpal_sword.dll is 
dependent on sword.dll?).

None of these problems are benefits are particularly mind=
 blowing, 
but I haven't seen it done in practice so I was curious what=
 others 
might think of it.

I personally still prefer monolithic, statically linked stuff=
 because 
the practical advantages typically outweigh the theoretical=
 benefits.

Thoughts and comments?

-Hook

[GD-General] DLLs for game objects

[Brian H. <bri...@py...>]

Relating to a thread on the gamedevlists-windows list, I thought=
 I'd 
just toss this out for discussion.

One of the reasons often touted for using a scripting language is=
 
that you can easily modify the behaviour of game objects without=
 
recompiling your main source base.  This is definitely an=
 advantage.

The way you'd achieve the same effect using compiled code is via=
 
DLLs.  At a coarser level, the Quakes did this with QuakeC (Q1),=
 
server-side DLLs (Quake 2), and server + client side DLLs (Q3),=
 but 
each entity itself was not a separate DLL.

So let's take that to an extreme, where every object is generated=
 by 
a factory method within a specific DLL.  You get the advantage=
 that 
your "game kernel" does not have to be recompiled on the fly to 
change behaviour, along with the advantages of debugger=
 compatibility 
and compiled code.

The downside is primarily complexity, in that you have hundreds=
 or 
maybe even thousands of DLLs for every entity, e.g. sword.dll and=
 
orc.dll or what have you.  Not to mention that you could=
 conceivably 
run into a problem with DLL dependencies (what if=
 vorpal_sword.dll is 
dependent on sword.dll?).

None of these problems are benefits are particularly mind=
 blowing, 
but I haven't seen it done in practice so I was curious what=
 others 
might think of it.

I personally still prefer monolithic, statically linked stuff=
 because 
the practical advantages typically outweigh the theoretical=
 benefits.

Thoughts and comments?

-Hook

RE: [GD-General] Copyright on games

[Jamie F. <ja...@qu...>]

even if there had been a patent on chess (hard, given that it predates
patent law :), it would have expired a long time ago :)

j


-----Original Message-----
From: gam...@li...
[mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
Gareth Lewin
Sent: 04 March 2003 10:10
To: gam...@li...
Subject: RE: [GD-General] Copyright on games


> My understanding is that it's patents you have to worry
> about.  Patents
> being for the "idea" and copyright being for the "implementaion".
>
> So you could copy the basics of the game idea, but you would
> have to make it
> look different. (Unless they have a patent)
>
> The easiest way to find out what matters is to contact the
> creators of the
> original game, and a lawyer :)

Hmm, that makes a lot more sense to me thank you. So theoretically, unless
the gameplay itself is patented (not likely ofcourse), a game that looks
totally differant but is the same gameplay would be legal.

I wonder how this passes over to more standard games like Chess, Bridge etc
? I doubt anyone has a patent on that :)


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger
for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and
disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX
and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-general mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557

RE: [GD-General] Copyright on games

[Gareth L. <GL...@cl...>]

> My understanding is that it's patents you have to worry 
> about.  Patents 
> being for the "idea" and copyright being for the "implementaion".
> 
> So you could copy the basics of the game idea, but you would 
> have to make it 
> look different. (Unless they have a patent)
> 
> The easiest way to find out what matters is to contact the 
> creators of the 
> original game, and a lawyer :)

Hmm, that makes a lot more sense to me thank you. So theoretically, unless
the gameplay itself is patented (not likely ofcourse), a game that looks
totally differant but is the same gameplay would be legal.

I wonder how this passes over to more standard games like Chess, Bridge etc
? I doubt anyone has a patent on that :)

Re: [GD-General] Copyright on games

[Simon S. <red...@ho...>]

>From: Gareth Lewin <GL...@cl...>
>To: gam...@li...
>Subject: RE: [GD-General] Copyright on games
>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:44:23 -0000
>Reply-To: gam...@li...
>
>I will come out and say that Bust-A-Move clone was a random example based 
>on
>a game that you can play here with Sky (British sat TV company).
>
>I'm asking in general.
>
>IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer ?
>
>My wife is, maybe I should ask her ? :) Although I doubt she would know,
>it's not her field (thus my question here).
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Maier [mailto:st...@ys...]
> > Sent: 03 March 2003 14:37
> > To: gam...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [GD-General] Copyright on games
> >
> >
> > Well The Tetris Company has taken action against others that
> > have made Teris clones before.  Their website if I remember
> > correctly even had a link to talk to them about officially
> > licensed games, but they guy answering the emails was not
> > very helpful.
> >
> > I had heard of a publisher (Extreme3D) getting sued for
> > having clones, but then there is egames, which does alot of clones.
> >
> > IANAL, so I can't talk about the legality of a bust-a-move
> > clone, but there are alot of them out there - and some big
> > names making that type of clone for different consoles too.
> > So I think that you might fall under a copyright owners
> > radar, and that they would probably not sue, but there is
> > always a chance.  Take a look at Snood.  They have been a
> > very popular shareware version of bust-a-move and I don't
> > think that have been sued yet.
> >
> > Steve
> >
>

My understanding is that it's patents you have to worry about.  Patents 
being for the "idea" and copyright being for the "implementaion".

So you could copy the basics of the game idea, but you would have to make it 
look different. (Unless they have a patent)

The easiest way to find out what matters is to contact the creators of the 
original game, and a lawyer :)

--redwyre

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to  
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp

RE: [GD-General] Copyright on games

[Gareth L. <GL...@cl...>]

I will come out and say that Bust-A-Move clone was a random example based on
a game that you can play here with Sky (British sat TV company).

I'm asking in general.

IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer ?

My wife is, maybe I should ask her ? :) Although I doubt she would know,
it's not her field (thus my question here).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Maier [mailto:st...@ys...]
> Sent: 03 March 2003 14:37
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: Re: [GD-General] Copyright on games
> 
> 
> Well The Tetris Company has taken action against others that 
> have made Teris clones before.  Their website if I remember 
> correctly even had a link to talk to them about officially 
> licensed games, but they guy answering the emails was not 
> very helpful. 
> 
> I had heard of a publisher (Extreme3D) getting sued for 
> having clones, but then there is egames, which does alot of clones.  
> 
> IANAL, so I can't talk about the legality of a bust-a-move 
> clone, but there are alot of them out there - and some big 
> names making that type of clone for different consoles too.  
> So I think that you might fall under a copyright owners 
> radar, and that they would probably not sue, but there is 
> always a chance.  Take a look at Snood.  They have been a 
> very popular shareware version of bust-a-move and I don't 
> think that have been sued yet.
> 
> Steve
> 

Re: [GD-General] Copyright on games

[Steve M. <st...@ys...>]

Well The Tetris Company has taken action against others that have made Teris clones before.  Their website if I remember correctly even had a link to talk to them about officially licensed games, but they guy answering the emails was not very helpful. 

I had heard of a publisher (Extreme3D) getting sued for having clones, but then there is egames, which does alot of clones.  

IANAL, so I can't talk about the legality of a bust-a-move clone, but there are alot of them out there - and some big names making that type of clone for different consoles too.  So I think that you might fall under a copyright owners radar, and that they would probably not sue, but there is always a chance.  Take a look at Snood.  They have been a very popular shareware version of bust-a-move and I don't think that have been sued yet.

Steve

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Gareth Lewin <GL...@cl...>
Reply-To: gam...@li...
Date:  Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:49:09 -0000

>Does anyone have any pointers to some info on what is (c) and what isn't ?
>
>Could I take bust-a-move (puzzle bobble). Totally redo the game, different
>graphics, different sounds, etc, but same game play ? 
>
>Maybe rotating the game play so you shoot down. Would that be legal ?
>
>_____________________
>Regards, Gareth Lewin
>
>"Well yes, apart from a unified API to a wide range of PC hardware, a
>powerful operating system accessible to Joe Public, one of the most
>developer-friendly pieces of console hardware ever made and a rather
>promising new scripting language, what have Microsoft ever given us?"
>"A computer in every home?"
>"Oh shut up." 
>(Thanks to Tom Forsyth for that)
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
>Welcome to geek heaven.
>http://thinkgeek.com/sf
>_______________________________________________
>Gamedevlists-general mailing list
>Gam...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
>Archives:
>http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557
>

RE: [GD-General] Copyright on games

[Jamie F. <ja...@qu...>]

ianal (but my father was... and wrote a book as an introduction to
international intellectual property law, sadly now out of print :). i
believe the implementation is copyright, not the idea behind it. then again,
i believe some US games companies have done their best to stop people
cloning their games, and fighting a law suit is never much fun, even if they
haven't got a leg to stand on legally.

jamie

-----Original Message-----
From: gam...@li...
[mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
Gareth Lewin
Sent: 03 March 2003 12:49
To: Gamedevlists-General (E-mail)
Subject: [GD-General] Copyright on games


Does anyone have any pointers to some info on what is (c) and what isn't ?

Could I take bust-a-move (puzzle bobble). Totally redo the game, different
graphics, different sounds, etc, but same game play ?

Maybe rotating the game play so you shoot down. Would that be legal ?

_____________________
Regards, Gareth Lewin

"Well yes, apart from a unified API to a wide range of PC hardware, a
powerful operating system accessible to Joe Public, one of the most
developer-friendly pieces of console hardware ever made and a rather
promising new scripting language, what have Microsoft ever given us?"
"A computer in every home?"
"Oh shut up."
(Thanks to Tom Forsyth for that)


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-general mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557

[GD-General] Copyright on games

[Gareth L. <GL...@cl...>]

Does anyone have any pointers to some info on what is (c) and what isn't ?

Could I take bust-a-move (puzzle bobble). Totally redo the game, different
graphics, different sounds, etc, but same game play ? 

Maybe rotating the game play so you shoot down. Would that be legal ?

_____________________
Regards, Gareth Lewin

"Well yes, apart from a unified API to a wide range of PC hardware, a
powerful operating system accessible to Joe Public, one of the most
developer-friendly pieces of console hardware ever made and a rather
promising new scripting language, what have Microsoft ever given us?"
"A computer in every home?"
"Oh shut up." 
(Thanks to Tom Forsyth for that)

Re: [GD-General] Re: [GD-Design] Indie - Publishing Services?

[Mike W. <ge...@ub...>]

dunno about amazing, but almost all of the pieces of the puzzle are in 
place already, and i'm putting the finishing touches on the content 
management system for the site - won't be too long before i have 
something online to show.

i'll definitely keep everyone posted about any news (opening day, etc) 
on the publishing front.

mike w
www.uber-geek.ca




Gareth Lewin wrote:

>Wow, this looks amazing. I know there are financial interests for doing
>this, but they can't be huge, which brings me to the conclusion that you
>really want to help the Indies out there.
>
>Thanks a lot sir. (I'm not an indie, but that's not the point).
>
>Assuming games are good, I will be supporting this when it goes live by
>purchasing whatever looks really good :) So keep us posted,
>
>_____________________
>Regards, Gareth Lewin
>  
>

RE: [GD-General] Re: [GD-Design] Indie - Publishing Services?

[Gareth L. <GL...@cl...>]

Wow, this looks amazing. I know there are financial interests for doing
this, but they can't be huge, which brings me to the conclusion that you
really want to help the Indies out there.

Thanks a lot sir. (I'm not an indie, but that's not the point).

Assuming games are good, I will be supporting this when it goes live by
purchasing whatever looks really good :) So keep us posted,

_____________________
Regards, Gareth Lewin

"Well yes, apart from a unified API to a wide range of PC hardware, a
powerful operating system accessible to Joe Public, one of the most
developer-friendly pieces of console hardware ever made and a rather
promising new scripting language, what have Microsoft ever given us?"
"A computer in every home?"
"Oh shut up." 
(Thanks to Tom Forsyth for that)

[GD-General] Re: [GD-Design] Indie - Publishing Services?

[Mike W. <ge...@ub...>]

>
>
>>[shameless plug time]
>>my company is currently preparing a publishing site for the game
>>engine we support as well, but the goal is definitely to have games
>>with other engines included as well.
>>    
>>
>Actually, can you go ahead and describe some more on-list what this 
>is about?  Hard to say it's "off-topic", although maybe this should 
>migrate to gamedevlists-general as a more appropriate forum.
>
K here goes ;}

Essentially, I have been helping sponsor and develop an open source game 
engine (Reality Factory) for several years now, the engine has grown and 
matured significantly over the past 3 years, to the point that people 
are coming up with completed games that are ready to sell.  I've been 
frustrated (as many others have i'm sure) with the options that are 
available currently, and as a result I've started work on this project.

Currently, there are ways to get your game for sale online, but these 
companies don't do any marketing or promotions, don't really 'help' you 
beyond actually providing the shipped-cd for the customer.  This is 
where this project falls.  We let you build the games, we'll promote it 
as well as give you the tools to manage & support the game once it's 
been released.

Basically, we're developing a customized online portal that is designed 
to help you sell your games.

Some of the services we will be offering:

    * Cd's can be shipped in any number of different packaging styles,
      with printed manuals, in normal CD cases, DVD cases, etc...just
      depends on how you want your game to look when it gets shipped.
       This will also mean that each developer can, to a certain extent,
      customize the revenue they receive for their game - if you want
      that 50 page printed manual, so be it, but this will reduce
      revenue for the game as well (printing costs, etc) compared to a
      game shipped with the CD and a smaller insert manual.
    * Customized & secure product registration system that allows for
      shareware software to become upgraded & unlocked into full-release
      software.  Alot of developers seem to be creating so-called
      'Episodic releases' - I'm experimenting with this as a possibility
      as well.  This is the centerstone of the entire system - secure
      delivery of the games.
    * Online e-Commerce sales & distribution integrated with the
      software security system - demo's can be setup in several ways -
      for 'x' days, for 'x' plays, that type of thing.
    * Shareware download & CD bundles for players to find the newest
      games to play as part of a larger online media portal (which will
      be promoting indie music and videos as well as games). 
    * For online-capable games, we can provide network server access,
      bandwidth and servers for any games we are publishing.  We've
      already been doing this for years with counter-strike & half-life
      based servers, providing rentals & community support.
    * Beta testing / community management tools for mailing lists, bug
      tracking, forums and more...a 'sourceforge for indie game
      developers' - we don't have a huge team here, but the goal is that
      we can 'help you help yourselves' in this manner, to create the
      most professional product possible.
    * Preview movies for your game, in online streaming format - as a
      simple example, I posted a VERY simple preview for the game i'm
      developing a few months ago - it has had literally thousands of
      people view it every month since it went online.  We can help
      create a small mini-preview movie of your game to help you promote
      your game
    * Provide merchandise for each game, including posters, calenders,
      mousepads, t-shirts, etc..
    * Soundtrack CD's for your game - we'll help you get your tracks
      into soundtrack ready format, if you don't have them already.  We
      have access to alot of indie music and will help work to get you
      the coolest soundtrack possible for your game.

It's gonna be a pretty interesting system overall...there will be a 
control panel where the developers will be able to update news, 
screenshots & game info from the web, as well as check out sales, 
traffic, manage your communities and so on.

We already have our network & bandwidth partners solid through the game 
server rental side of things (which has been rollin along for several 
years now), and in general, I'm very optimistic about the potential this 
project has.

We will be offering reasonable royalty rates, similar to what 
garagegames and x-games are offering, but i think the key is that we are 
looking to support ANY indie game that is professional enough to be 
considered a finished product.   I'd love to hear from any indies that 
have games that they have finished already or will be completing in the 
near future.   I'd like to have several titles available when we open 
the doors to the public.

An ongoing discussion regarding this topic is available from my site:

http://www.uber-geek.ca/?page=publishing

Cheers

Mike Wuetherick
www.uber-geek.ca
mi...@ub...

RE: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[Gareth L. <GL...@cl...>]

Yes, but when Dylan split up with Brenda (Shannon D'horty) I kind of decided
he was a twat.

Oops, this isn't the 90210 mailing list ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phi...@pl...
> [mailto:phi...@pl...]
> Sent: 24 February 2003 21:49
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: RE: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines
> 
> 
> 
> George Warner <ge...@ap...>:
> >  Sorry, I missed that. In that case I recommend that he use Cocoa &
> Objective-C! ;-)
> 
> Not Dylan?
> 
> Cheers,
> Phil
> 
> PS I actually quite liked Dylan...
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-general mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557
> 

RE: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[<phi...@pl...>]

George Warner <ge...@ap...>:
>  Sorry, I missed that. In that case I recommend that he use Cocoa &
Objective-C! ;-)

Not Dylan?

Cheers,
Phil

PS I actually quite liked Dylan...

RE: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[George W. <ge...@ap...>]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:39:31 -0000, Gareth Lewin <GL...@cl...>
wrote:
>> Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? What gained
>> portability?!? Go back
>> and re-read: "Unlikely C# will become portable in any
>> foreseeable future," &
>> "FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.".
>
> How did Jesus say it (Sorry, I'm jewish), "He who has not sinned shall cast
> the first stone"  ?
>
> He was using Sarcasm, you can tell by the sentance
>
> "Thanks for all of the feedback.  Maybe when I come down off
> of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your
> insights."

Sorry, I missed that. In that case I recommend that he use Cocoa &
Objective-C! ;-)

[\SARCASM]


--
Enjoy,
George Warner,
Mixed Mode Magic Fragment Scientist
Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS)

RE: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[Gareth L. <GL...@cl...>]

> Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? What gained 
> portability?!? Go back
> and re-read: "Unlikely C# will become portable in any 
> foreseeable future," &
> "FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.".

How did Jesus say it (Sorry, I'm jewish), "He who has not sinned shall cast
the first stone"  ?

He was using Sarcasm, you can tell by the sentance

"Thanks for all of the feedback.  Maybe when I come down off
of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your
insights."

Re: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[George W. <ge...@ap...>]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:48:34 -0800, "Colin Fahey" <cp...@ea...>
wrote:
> ============================================================================
>>>> Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future,
>>>> Which in my opinion will successfully rule it out from majority
>>>> of game engines.
> ============================================================================
>>>> C# for game engines, in a nutshell:
>>>> Pros:     Reflection.
>>>> Cons:     FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.
> ============================================================================
>
> The consensus seems to be that switching to C# is the way to go for
> all current and future video game projects, because of its gained
> portability, medium-term productivity, compelling "big deal", and
> foreseeable viability.

Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? What gained portability?!? Go back
and re-read: "Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future," &
"FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.".

--
Enjoy,
George Warner,
Mixed Mode Magic Fragment Scientist
Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS)

Re: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[<phi...@pl...>]

Colin:
> Thanks for all of the feedback.  Maybe when I come down off of all of
this crack cocaine I will get more out of your insights.

LOL!

Do bear in mind that C++ was first devised in 1979, nearly two decades
before the games industry started using it seriously.

Cheers,
Phil

PS Now if you'd said you were starting a new game engine in Lisp...

Re: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[Colin F. <cp...@ea...>]

2003 February 23rd
Sunday

Okay, I see a trend...

============================================================================
>>> [...] I have read some
>>> about C# and I really don't see what the big deal is for most game
>>> programming. The way I see it, changing languages is something that will
>>> be painful and cause a medium-term productivity loss, so there must be
>>> some *extremely* compelling reasons to change.
============================================================================

============================================================================
>>> The problems you point out, however, make its adoption unadvisable for
most
>>> game projects. There is not a lot of productivity to gain compared to
the
>>> costs involved. [...]
============================================================================

============================================================================
>>> Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future,
>>> Which in my opinion will successfully rule it out from majority
>>> of game engines.
============================================================================

============================================================================
>>> the mono project seems doomed to failure as a result.
============================================================================

============================================================================
>>> C# for game engines, in a nutshell:
>>> Pros:     Reflection.
>>> Cons:     FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.
============================================================================

The consensus seems to be that switching to C# is the way to go for
all current and future video game projects, because of its gained
portability, medium-term productivity, compelling "big deal", and
foreseeable viability.

I didn't expect this kind of universal support for such a new
development platform, especially given the kind of professional
experience of the people who post to this mailing list, but I
am humble and I hear what you guys are saying.

Now it's full-steam ahead with my C# game engine!  I'm so
glad that I'm not alone on this one.  I am really psyched that
major players in the industry have embraced C# as their new
game engine technology.  For a while I thought I was going to
have to bash Microsoft for inventing C# as a way to sell more
software, books, and seminars, and as a way to divide mind-share
and sue people.  How cynical could I get?!

Thanks for all of the feedback.  Maybe when I come down off
of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your
insights.

--- Colin

cp...@ea...

Re: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[<phi...@pl...>]

C# for game engines, in a nutshell:

Pros:     Reflection.
Cons:     FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.

Cheers,
Phil

Re: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[Mike W. <mi...@ub...>]

couple of differing viewpoints i've found

http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebusiness/story/0,2000024981,20270819,00.htm

http://slashdot.org/articles/02/04/05/1456252.shtml?tid=109

mike w
www.uber-geek.ca



Mark Webster wrote:

>Miguel de Icaza & co are doing this in full knowledge of Microsoft.  In
>fact,  I seem to remember talk of it being almost a partnership of sorts,
>but I can't seem to dredge up the link I read to validate this.
>

Re: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[Mark W. <ma...@aw...>]

> >If you have the Mono version of the .NET API under Linux, then
> >you can enjoy the same stack unwinding.
> >
> >
> except that microsoft has declared that they will be suing and attacking
> any attempts at reverse engineering their .net technology...
>
> the mono project seems doomed to failure as a result.

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002-February/msg00031.html

See heading "What is Mono?"

Miguel de Icaza & co are doing this in full knowledge of Microsoft.  In
fact,  I seem to remember talk of it being almost a partnership of sorts,
but I can't seem to dredge up the link I read to validate this.

Can't really think of how to steer this back towards having much to do with
game development!

[OT ends here. sorry!]

Mark Webster

RE: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines

[Wayne C. <wc...@re...>]

> except that microsoft has declared that they will be suing and attacking 
> any attempts at reverse engineering their .net technology...
>
> the mono project seems doomed to failure as a result.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but Microsoft released the source-code for
the C# compiler and the CLI amongst other things in order to get it ported
to other platforms. Using that would be different to 'reverse engineering'
their commercial compiler (which, AFAIK, has a 'more advanced' codebase).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?url=/downloads/sample.asp?ur
l=/MSDN-FILES/027/002/097/msdncompositedoc.xml

Wayney

-Virus scanned and cleared ok